LBC from SCS Law on behalf of UK Parking Control Ltd, Letter Before Claim from SCS Law on behalf of UK Parking Control Ltd |
LBC from SCS Law on behalf of UK Parking Control Ltd, Letter Before Claim from SCS Law on behalf of UK Parking Control Ltd |
Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 19:39
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 26 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,072 |
Hello
I've received a Letter Before Claim from SCS Law on behalf of UK Parking Control Ltd. Situation: staying temporarily at a private residence (private residents parking with allocated bays) with a tenant who has a parking permit but no vehicle, and I used his allocated parking bay and with their permission I displayed a permit "to the best of my recollection" all the time (but realistically maybe not always ) Received PCNs for alleged parking violations in a “Designated permit holder’s space without displaying a permit”, and” Not parking correctly within a marked bay”. On one of the occasions when I was ticketed I was actually in a visitors slot and not in a residents slot at all But - I did not respond to PCN's because the first time they issued one to me, I complained and they cancelled the charge on presentation of evidence that I had a parking permit. The Tenant's agreement does not specify any specific parking rights, but the space in question is shown allocated to the flat and I have a residents parking permit. I've prepared a letter in reply to the LBC based on samples I've seen but thought it wise to get get your opinions first. The part Im not sure about is that I don't have access to the original Lease therefore can't be sure of Primacy of Contract. Is it better not to muddy the waters with guesses about Primacy of Contract, and instead rely on the fact that I was parked in an allocated bay with the property holders permission and that I (probably) displayed a permit? SCS Law Level 34 25 Canada Square Canary Wharf London E14 5LQ 24th September 2018 Dear Sirs UK Parking Control Ltd – Response to Letter before Claim I refer to your letter before claim dated 11th September. This is my formal response for the purposes of the Civil Procedure Rules Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 1. Proposed Claim 1.1 Parking of my vehicle in parking bay “BS” in the car park at <location>, in alleged breach of contract leading to a claim of £1120.00 against me by your Client, UK Parking Control Ltd 2. Preliminary Issues 2.1 The Letter Before Claim appears to be largely generic in format, and does not conform to the Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims sub-paragraphs 2.1(a),(b),©, 3.1a(iv), 5.1 and 5.2. As solicitors (particularly those engaged, like yourselves, in issuing large numbers of generic claims such as this) you ought to know that you have failed to meet the requirements. Please consider 2.2.1 to 2.2.4 below my formal request for information under the Pre Action Protocol. 2.2 In accordance with the Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims sub-paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2, please forward details of the following within 30 days of this request: 2.2.1 Copies of un-redacted contracts in place on the relevant dates, showing the chain of authority from the landowner to your Client and establishing their standing to bring this Claim. 2.2.2 Details of the specific signage, with location, wording and font size(s) on which your Client is intending to rely (your mention of “signage throughout the site” is not sufficiently clear). 2.2.3 Photographs of my vehicle in relation to the signage on which your Client is intending to rely. 2.2.4 Any other documents that your Client intends to rely on in court 3. Response to the proposed Claim 3.1 The proposed Claim is disputed in its entirety. 3.1.1 Your letter does not identify the location of the alleged breach of contract, merely listing alleged parking violations in a “Designated permit holder’s space without displaying a permit.”, and” Not parking correctly within a marked bay”. 3.1.2 On all occasions the vehicle was parked in the designated Resident Permit Holder Parking Space “BS” that is allocated to the property, with one exception, where the vehicle was parked in a slot clearly marked “Visitors” and for which no ticket should have been issued at all. 3.1.3 Your Client (UK Parking Control Ltd.) has previously cancelled an alleged parking violation, for this very same vehicle in the very same slot for the same alleged transgression, upon presentation of evidence of possession of the correct parking permit. Your Client should consider this precedent, and their willingness to abandon proceedings on presentation of evidence of right of parking, very carefully. 3.1.4 On all occasions, to the best of the driver’s recollection, a valid permit was visibly displayed. 3.1.5 Judgement as to what does or does not constitute “parking correctly within a marked bay” and the degree to which such alleged trivial and vexatious accusations hold merit, is highly subjective and will be robustly defended. Property Rights 3.2 The property Lease provides an allocated parking space (bay “BS)”. 3.3 The Lease cannot be varied without the leaseholder’s consent. 3.4 The Lease has not been varied (since parking bay “BS” was allocated to the property) with regard to parking in bay “BS”, neither has it been varied in any other respect related to parking. 3.5 The following actions conflict with my rights to peaceful enjoyment of my property by removing my unfettered right to park in the bay allocated to the property; requiring payment if the driver does not display a permit while parked on the property; binding the driver of the vehicle to a contract with a third party over something already allocated to the property. 3.5.1 Notwithstanding the explanation at 3.5, the remedy for any breach by me of Lessee covenants would lie with the Lessor and not with your Client. Primacy of Contract 3.6 Notwithstanding my unfettered right to park in Bay “BS”, as detailed in 3.2 – 3.8 above It is alleged by your Client that by parking on bay “BS” the driver entered into a contract with your Client, which is specifically denied, for the reasons below. 3.6.1 A prior contract exists which cannot be over-ridden by your Client. 3.6.2 Signage at the site would only be capable of forming a contract in certain circumstances, including but not limited to, the absence of an existing contract. However, since you are relying on it, you must provide full details to me. I have requested the details at 2.2.2. 4. 4.1 In compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol, I have enclosed evidence of the Tenancy agreement establishing property rights, and invite your Client to reconsider this Claim, and further, to cease and desist from entering the property (bay “BS”) or affixing any notice to any vehicle parked therein. 4.2 In compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol, I have enclosed evidence of the right to park in an allocated space (the parking permit allocated to the property for parking bay “BS”) 4.3 To continue with this action, which is bound to fail, would be vexatious and unreasonable, and could have detrimental consequences for your Client in terms of costs. 4.4 If you fail to provide the requested documents within 30 days, and proceed to litigation, I will immediately apply for a stay, at your Client’s expense, until you comply. I will also notify the Solicitors Regulation Authority of your inability to follow this most basic requirement. 5. Counter Claim 5.1 You will know that as this is a residential location the residents will have a lease or agreement for the property they own or rent. It would be incumbent upon you to consider the leaseholder rights in respect of the use of allocated parking spaces 5.2 If your Client continues to litigation I shall be submitting a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office about your misuse of personal data, and issuing a counter-claim against your Client for 7 breaches of the Data Protection Act at £200 for each wrongful application for, and misuse of, my personal details from the DVLA, and 7 counts of trespass on the property as evidenced by affixing notices to the windscreen of my vehicle at £160.00 per occasion. Total amount of the claim £2,520.00. Documents Enclosed: (i) evidence of issued parking permit for allocated parking for the property at <location> (ii) evidence of property rights for the property at <location> This post has been edited by langworth: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 20:41 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 19:39
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 21:47
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 901 Joined: 1 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,235 |
You may wish to edit your last post by deleting the fourth paragraph.
Parking anywhere on the development will almost certainly be governed by the lease. That is why the lease is so important. |
|
|
Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 09:24
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Indeed, go get your lease
Personally I WOULD respond, reminding them yet again that they have failed to comply, notwithstanding their bland assertion that they are compliant, and this failure is self evident Their client offered no service to the driver that they didnt already have good licence to, and to suggest that a third party signs can somehow override a lease is laughable. |
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 12:02
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 26 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,072 |
Hello
I have a response from SCS Law dates 13 December: ------------------------------- We write further to our Letter Before Claim sent to you dated 11 September 2018 and our letter dated 12 November 2018 (copy enclosed) to which no response has been received to date. As no agreement has been reached between the parties, our client UK Parking Control Ltd. has instructed us to issue county court proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charge notice after 14 days from the date of the service of this letter. Please treat this letter as the required notice pursuant to paragraph 8.2 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. ------------------------------- Whats the correct approach at this point? - Respond reminding them that they failed to meet the requirements of the protocol within the time period stipulated? - Go to court with my bag of facts (they've previously cancelled a ticket in the same parking bay), I was resident there, I can show evidence of the parking permit and to the best of my recollection it was always ( ) displayed, and the tenant has offered to attend in the day if it goes to court) - Or do I point out the holes in their case now? Thanks Simon |
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 12:07
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Did you respond as suggested above?
You cannot Ambush them, that wont fly. As you will know, from reading around on other court cases (because research is expected) that you will show yor hand early - you wil l supply a defence, then at the latest 14 days before the hearing you will have shown them your evidnece. |
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 12:07
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,985 Joined: 20 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,992 |
The third one.
-------------------- Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
|
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 12:57
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 26 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,072 |
I didn't respond to their last letter on the off chance that they may decide not to proceed. Now that it appears that they intend to do that I will have to respond and lay my arguments out as you've suggested above.
|
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 13:45
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Yeah, you handed them back the intiiative....
|
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 14:02
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 26 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,072 |
Hi Folks
Just checked the land registry and it the freehold document says "23.01.2012 <**location redacted**> 125 years from 01.01.2011 NOTE: The lease grants the exclusive use of the car parking space edged and numbered 21 in brown on the title plan." And: " 1 (23.01.2012) The Leasehold land shown edged with red on the plan of the above title filed at the Registry and being <**location redacted**> NOTE: Only the second floor flat is included in the title. 2 (23.01.2012) Short particulars of the lease(s) (or under-lease(s)) under which the land is held: Date : 20 December 2011 Term : 125 years from 1 January 2011 Parties : (1) Taylor Wimpey UK Limited (2) Trinity (Estates) Property Management Limited (3) <Lessee> 3 (23.01.2012) The Lease prohibits or restricts alienation. 4 (23.01.2012) The Lease dated 20 December 2011 referred to above grants the exclusive use of the car parking space tinted pink on the title plan. 5 (23.01.2012) The title includes any legal easements referred to in clause LR11.1 of the registered lease but is subject to any rights that are granted or reserved by the lease and affect the registered land. 6 (23.01.2012) The landlord's title is registered." Does this provide the primacy of contract that I need? Thanks Simon This post has been edited by langworth: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 14:28 |
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 16:17
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
I would say so, particularly if you show the office copies of the lease and the plan.
In fact, one wonders if a counter claim could be initiated for them conducting business in your exclusive space without consent. Others will advise. -------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 16:22
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 564 Joined: 15 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,103 |
Point out to them that it's your land demised to you by your lease, and you have primacy of contract. Point out to them that you expect them to realise that their case has no hope of succeeding and any business, especially one concerned with parking should realise this. If they persist in this then you can advise them that you will consider raising a counter claim for damages for loss of the quiet enjoyment of the space and invite the court to award damages it sees fit. They can hardly say that you havent therefore warned them.
|
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 16:24
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 901 Joined: 1 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,235 |
If you have not already obtained a copy of the lease governing the apartment and its parking space, you must get a copy from the Land Registry.
You need to complete form OC2 and pay the modest fee. |
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 16:43
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 26 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,072 |
Yes, I have the land registry docs, hence the quotes above.
They clearly show the marked parking space that I had been using as the space attached to the property. I would be inclined to think that I can park on my own land without worrying about the necessity to display a permit? |
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 17:46
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 901 Joined: 1 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,235 |
Sorry, I was obviously not paying proper attention to what you had posted.
Was the person with whom you stayed the leaseholder? If so, is he/she willing to provide you with a witness statement saying that he/she granted permission for you to park in the allocated parking space? Is there any clause in the lease which mentions the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 or anything at all about the right of a third-party (i.e. an individual or company who is not a party to the lease) to enforce any of its terms? If there is, what precisely does it say? The lease will require the leaseholder to make certain payments (e.g. ground rent and service charges). The lease will almost certainly list what can be included in the service charges. Is anything said about parking charges in that list or elsewhere in the lease? The lease will almost certainly include a clause or clauses granting the Lessor and/or the Management Company the power to make rules or regulations in certain circumstances. What does the lease have to say on the subject of rules and regulations? There will almost certainly be covenants about parking contained in the lease requiring the Lessee to do or not to do certain things, e.g. the vehicle must be roadworthy, the vehicle must not be over a certain weight and so on. What covenants relating to parking are contained in the lease. |
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 19:18
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 26 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,072 |
Hi
> Was the person with whom you stayed the leaseholder? If so, is he/she willing to provide you with a witness statement saying that he/she granted permission for you to park in the allocated parking space? It is the tenant and yes they will be willing to state I had permission while resident there. I don't have the full lease docs that (that you get by submitting form OC2), just the freehold and leasehold title and plans from the online search - which both state "The lease grants the exclusive use of the car parking space...". I'll send off OC2 but assume a prompt response is required along the lines of the suggestions above. Thanks |
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 19:37
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
I wouldn't bother with OC2. You have sufficient evidence, on the balance of probabilities, to show the tenant had a legal estate over the parking space. If you produce the full lease, there may be other clauses which the claimant spots and tries to use against you.
An entry in the land registry is notice to all under Land Registration Acts and reasonable diligence would have revealed such to the principal Managing Agent, if not the agent PPC. -------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 21:01
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18,751 Joined: 20 Sep 2009 Member No.: 32,130 |
I would say so, particularly if you show the office copies of the lease and the plan. In fact, one wonders if a counter claim could be initiated for them conducting business in your exclusive space without consent. Others will advise. No, that's just a template being bombed by Eljayjay on every residential thread, where he still continues to try to make posters dependent on him and to steer all the cases his way. We need to stop that from confusing posters who simply need to defend using bargepole's template. No-one needs a poster to pilot in and copy & paste their template waffle defence & counter claim at every poster, regardless of suitability and using a premise that has no legs. Not suited to this case anyway! |
|
|
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 - 09:46
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
If the lease shows without doubt that UKPC had absolutely no rights to the use of the land, and reasonable diligence would have shown that to be so, then I do think that a counterclaim for the use of the land without permission would be in order. The starting sum would be number of days x their daily rate, reduced to a sensible rate of whatever is the daily rate locally and of course some compensation for the work entailed in handling the false claim and the distress caused. Not doing so will only let UKPC continue their threats against residents.
Here's a countercalim against VCS |
|
|
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 - 13:19
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 901 Joined: 1 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,235 |
The lease would be vital evidence if your case goes to court (and it does seem to be going that way). So, do get hold of a copy. Although it is unlikely, if the parking operator finds something in the lease which aids its case, you need to be in a position where you can refute it.
As you are not the owner of the land, you could not launch a counterclaim based on trespass. If, however, the leaseholder is really with you on this, he/she could launch a claim based on trespass and request that your case and his/her claim are heard together. As ostell suggests, the leaseholder's claim could be based on the number of days (from the later of the date the parking operator commenced using your space for the purposes of its business and the date the leaseholder acquired the lease to the current date) and the current date multiplied by the cost of a day's parking elsewhere locally. If the product is more than £10,000, keep the figure below this amount so that the claim can be heard in the small claims track. This post has been edited by Eljayjay: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 - 13:20 |
|
|
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 - 14:47
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
As previously stated, the land registration is sufficient evidence of proprietorship of the parking space. The lease may contain wording that you DON'T wish to put in front of either the PPC or a court, particularly as you are a stranger to it!
This post has been edited by cabbyman: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 - 14:48 -------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 - 15:12
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 901 Joined: 1 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,235 |
As already mentioned “Although it is unlikely, if the parking operator finds something in the lease which aids its case, you need to be in a position where you can refute it“.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 07:25 |